Pentagon flyover witnesses reported by Center for Military History

Originally posted by Gonenuts

You have fail to disprove that these witness are lairs ( Pentagon flyover witnesses reported by Center for Military History »)

Well, we're just asking questions.

Funny how CIT will use some government witness *only* when it supports their theory. Step away from your bias and think about it. The VAST majority of witnesses disprove this whole "flyover fantasy".

The only thing you have not fail at, was your ridiculing, and RANTINGS!

Oh, hi Cashlink!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Interesting Craig. Thanks.. and it is obviously scary to the government defenders by the amount of posts trying to derail your valid info on the subject. Seems that happens alot nowadays on ATS...


Rgds

posted by CameronFox

And yes... CIT and PFT are all but done..and will grasp at anything.

Grasp at anything? You hypocrite. That is what you have been doing. The North of Citgo eyewitnesses and the ANC eyewitnesses and Morin amd Paik are all a done deal. They have confirmed the Over the Naval Annex flight path. YOUR 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY has been proven impossible.

CIT is only piling on more and more witnesses to bury you pathetic 9-11 PERP defenders deeper and deeper into your stinking quagmire.

And CameronFox did you come up with an answer for this?

Lisa Burgess is a non-witness. She admitted she saw nothing. She was watching the people in front of her, watching the people in back of her, watching the people on the lawn, and bouncing off the wall. She most likely saw the flash of the fireball from a quick glimpse, was blinded for a number of seconds, and later saw the explosion plume in the sky. There is no reason to believe she was watching the sky before the bright flash fireball, nor could she have seen much of the sky from inside the wide corridor.



Those are not very big windows in that 2nd story A-Ring Corridor even with those trees are they CameronFox? They are surely not floor to ceiling picture windows nor are they window walls, are they CameronFox?



[edit on 1/21/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

blah blah blah....

You do not have a POV of what window she was looking out of. As she stated she was doing. She saw the flash.... and you are correct....

SHE SAW NOTHING!!

She should have seen something.... anything.

Ok folks we got a hold of this witness today.

As you can hear in the CMH interview his name did not get properly redacted and he spells it out as Erik Dihle.

Unfortunately he does not remember anything about the flyover witnesses.

Naturally he dismissed this in his mind back in 2001 after the propaganda set in as it would seem like an anomalous insignificant detail to him.


BUT......

Just as I thought he 100% confirms the northwest approach of the C-130 as reported by all the other ANC witnesses proving the 84 RADES data fraudulent and fully supporting our claims about the pilot Lt Col Steve O'Brien describing the attack jet headed for DC skies.

This is HUGELY significant and 100% proves evidence tampering to facilitate the 2nd plane cover story and cover-up the east side approach of the attack jet.

Listen to interview here.

reply to post by MR1159


The passengers on Flight 77 were found dead in the Pentagon. DNA results prove it. The test of the false claims of CIT is explaining how the DNA was faked. What you get from CIT is poor analysis and selective use of witness testimony.

reply to post by MR1159


The passengers on Flight 77 were found dead in the Pentagon. DNA results prove it. The test of the false claims of CIT is explaining how the DNA was faked. What you get from CIT is poor analysis and selective use of witness testimony.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Nice work Craig,

I think it is very interesting that he is "confident that a plane struck" the Pentagon although he wasn't in a position to see it, and cites his reasons for believing so as the general media portrayal of the event (bodies, an explosion, people pulled from the wreckage).

The only thing I would like to add at this time is this:

"Selling DVDs on the internet must be a pretty good business".

It´s like those infomercials on TV that sell you all kinds of useles crap, but those people actually make millions on all those gulible customers that can just buy anything with their credit card.

IT´S THAT EASY. AND IT´S A GOOD BUSINESS AND IT SHOWS!!!

posted by rush969
The only thing I would like to add at this time is this:

"Selling DVDs on the internet must be a pretty good business".

So? Why would anybody need to buy those DVDs when every one of them can be watched for free? Have you ever bothered to watch any of the CIT or P4T videos? Yes? Did it cost you anything to watch them?

No, you have not bothered to watch them? Many reside on Truther hard drives at home and not one penny exchanged hands. Really lucrative business profits aren't they? Of course Truthers who wish to share in the costs sometimes buy DVDs or even donate funds. But that would be strictly voluntary wouldn't it?

Even you *snip* government loyalists can watch all the CIT and P4T videos you want, all for free; no charge.








Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/1/2009 by Sauron]

There is a reason why more people did not see a fly-over. It is called percepitional blindness. For those psedo-skeptics who claim people WOULD have saw it:
Inattenitonal Blindness/Perceptional Blindness-

“This research is showing us something that we didn't think was the case—that we can fail to perceive very major things going on right in front of our eyes,” remarks cognitive psychologist Brian Scholl, PhD, of Yale University. “In contrast with a lot of research on visual perception, these studies are truly surprising for both scientists and lay people because they're so at odds with how we assumed vision worked.” Inattentional blindness is one of two perceptual phenomena that have begun to change scientists' view of visual perception, from one of a videotape to something far less precise. Beginning in the 1970s researchers began to recognize a phenomenon called “change blindness,” finding that people often fail to detect change in their visual field, as long as the change occurs during an eye movement or when people's view is otherwise interrupted. Such findings have spurred debates about how—and indeed, whether—the brain stores and integrates visual information. Research on inattentional blindness has come to the fore more recently. That work, showing people's inability to detect unexpected objects to which we aren't paying attention, raises other questions: How much visual input can the mind encode, consciously and unconsciously? What brings some visual objects to conscious awareness, while others remain unnoticed? What is the fate of information that is perceived only unconsciously? In 1999, Harvard University psychologists Daniel Simons, PhD, and Christopher Chabris, PhD, extended Mack and Rock's results using a “selective looking” procedure introduced in the 1970s by Ulric Neisser, PhD, of Cornell University, and colleagues. Source: jeff.dean.home.att.net...

More can be read here: Gorilla In Our Midst Gorillan In Our Midst

Now test yourself and others: focus on counting the number of times the people only in white pass the basketball to each other.

Google Video Link

Or here if that dosn't work-Perceptual Bindness Experiment

This is exactly what has happened at the Pentagon that day. That is why Roosevelt Roberts Jr. was able to report the fly-over plane. He wasn't distracted by the flash, the explosion, avoidance of the attack plane, in fear of his life, etc. He expects to see low flying passenger planes all of the time because it is a normal part of his perceptual environment and certainly not out of the ordinary. That is why it was no big deal to him until the implications of what he saw set in and hence the change in behavior.

People in the area expect fly overs as nothing out of the ordinary be it commercial or military via Arlington National Cemetery. What they don't expect is a huge flash, explosions, booms, 5 story tall smoke pillars, etc. The fly over was the gorilla in the room.

So the next time pseudo skeptics claim that people WOULD have SHOULD have seen a fly over jet are completely ignorant about human perception and perceptual/inattentional blindness.

Jthomas you may now stop that claim.

reply to post by Swing Dangler



Well said Swing Dangler, great post. The human mind is remarkably prone to missing things that it registers as "that can't be right!", like the Douglas Adams "Somebody Elses Problem" field.

It is more likely not so much as a lack of witnesses to a flyover, but more that few, if any, realised that they actually witnessed a flyover.

reply to post by almighty bob


Are you serious?
You really think that there wouldn't be hundreds of people reporting that they saw a large jet pull up and over the Pentagon?
The intense noise would have no doubt drawn their attention not to mention the magnitude of watching the plane pull off such an incredible maneuver!

Originally posted by 654321
reply to post by almighty bob

 

Are you serious?

Occasionally

Originally posted by 654321
You really think that there wouldn't be hundreds of people reporting that they saw a large jet pull up and over the Pentagon?

Hard to say. How many people were in a position to actually verifiably see either an impact or a flyover without also being in such a position that by the time the shock of the potential pyrotechnic display and fireworks distraction, the craft would be a distance away from the Pentagon. I assume that the craft would have had reasonable speed, not just still be hovering over the Pentagon.

I am not saying definitively that there was a flyover, but the evidence of the witness testimonies brought by CIT, the flightpath and the damage patterns would seem to indicate that any craft coming in on the northside flight path did not actually impact.

Originally posted by 654321
The intense noise would have no doubt drawn their attention not to mention the magnitude of watching the plane pull off such an incredible maneuver!

Over the noise of the explosion, the shock of what was happening? Possibly, possibly not. From the lack of dependible witnesses either way it is hard to validate from testimony alone. And, as I said before, the craft would have managed to cover a reasonable distance before the shock of the approach and explosion, this sensory assault, would have cleared.

But would that maneuvre have been any more incredible than a barely trained pilot bringing a commercial airliner along the official flightpath so low as to bring down light poles but still manage not to graze the Pentagon's pristine lawn?

Originally posted by 654321
reply to post by almighty bob

 

Are you serious?
You really think that there wouldn't be hundreds of people reporting that they saw a large jet pull up and over the Pentagon?
The intense noise would have no doubt drawn their attention not to mention the magnitude of watching the plane pull off such an incredible maneuver!

Hmmm two loud booms by one CMH witness, secondary explosion reported from inside the Pentagon,a huge bright flash, a huge fireball and explosion with shockwave and of course sound. Yep I'm real sure people wouldn't have heard it. If you did your research you would already know that several people heard the plane "gun" the engines prior to the assumed impact. So yes the noise was heard and reported on. Not only that, loud jet engines are a part of the auditory environment as well.

And for your viewing pleasure... a 757 high speed pull up and 'fly over' for your pleasure. Please take note the relative lack of time the plane is in sight and the relative quite engine noise after the initial pass and pull up. Now in your mind place the Pentagon at the end of the shot, a huge flash, an over 6+ story fire ball, and you have your fly over.

So pseduo skeptic, you may now cease the claim that people would have "heard" the fly over. You may now never again take the noise alone out of the context of the event.

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 10/30/2007 by Swing Dangler]

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Swing D ~

If you look into the silly flyover & around fantasy, you would see that the flight path that they make work would require the plane to fly in front of and to the right of the impact point.

Again...not a soul was witness to this flight path.

...I for one appreciate that both sides here, who obviously know each other well because of their opposing didactic positions, still have the passion to fight for what they believe really happened.
....But please, both you the CIT and you the Anti-CIT don't forget that you set out to prove the truth of 9/11. Don't get too psycho and lose sight of that...because then you would, sardonically, represent what both sides are fighting against and being unified in doing so. ( if there is truth to be found then accept it is what I'm saying, otherwise you both are champions of lies.)

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Swing D ~

If you look into the silly flyover & around fantasy, you would see that the flight path that they make work would require the plane to fly in front of and to the right of the impact point.

Again...not a soul was witness to this flight path.

Well if you step out of your silly crumbling gov't story fantasy for a minute you will know that reporter Dave Statter not only reported that one witness told him that "the pilot tried to AVERT the building" but that "the plane went to the side of the building, not directly in."

Sounds like Dave Statter spoke with a soul. lol

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by rush969
The only thing I would like to add at this time is this:

"Selling DVDs on the internet must be a pretty good business".

So? Why would anybody need to buy those DVDs when every one of them can be watched for free?

Conversely...why would anyone need to sell these on DVD when "every one of them can be watched for free?



[edit on 22-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by rush969
The only thing I would like to add at this time is this:

"Selling DVDs on the internet must be a pretty good business".

So? Why would anybody need to buy those DVDs when every one of them can be watched for free?

Conversely...why would anyone need to sell these on DVD when "every one of them can be watched for free?



[edit on 22-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

Oh I don't know, because perhaps people requested it be on DVD to show their friends and family.

Oh I don't know because we are up against a trillion dollar propaganda machine and any and all financial support is needed and welcome.

Oh I don't know because we spent our own money on all of this research and we feel we have the right to recoup costs.

Why would anyone need to constantly bring up this issue other than to try and discredit us instead of say going out and interviewing witnesses?

Man it must be awesome to be anonymous and obsessed with CIT and CT's in general.